Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday March 31, 2014 @02:39PM
from the read-all-about-it dept.

jsuda (822856) writes "Most of us know that making money is difficult and saving it is even harder, but understanding money is easy–it's just coins and folding certificates, a mere medium of exchange. That's wrong! according to Felix Martin, author of Money: The Unauthorized Biography. Not only is that understanding wrong but it's responsible (in large part) for the 2007 Great Recession and the pitiful 'recovery' from it as well as a number of previous financial and credit disasters." Keep reading for the rest of Jsuda's review.

Money: the Unauthorized Biography

author

Felix Martin

pages

336

publisher

Knopf

rating

8/10

reviewer

jsuda

ISBN

0307962431

summary

A sweeping historical epic that traces the development and evolution of money

Mr. Martin draws a comparison of the orthodox understanding of money as a mere medium of exchange as typified by material objects–coins, gold bars, measuring sticks, and the like and a different way of thinking about it--as a social accounting construction based on mutual trust. That way of thinking acts as a primary social organizing tool. As such, a monetary system is much more sophisticated than just a logical extension of primitive bartering systems. It is imbued with major political aspects which account, in part, for the differences between the haves and have-nots, the policies selected to address financial/economic busts, and the relationship of the state to the monetary/financial systems.

The differing understandings of money underlie even now the varied explanations by economists of the causes of the Great Recession and the varied reactions of political leaders to it. It is also relevant to the deliberate removal of the government from the monetary system in favor of an impersonal computer network, as in the digital coin system now developing.

The author is a professional economist, bond trader, and analyst with the George Soros Institute for Economic Thinking. The book is a very worthwhile look at the concept of money as a (implicit, at least) political and social determinant and is quite topical as alternative monetary systems (mostly digitalized) like Bit Coin and competitors are garnering much attention. While the book does not address those new developments, it's clear that the digitalized coin systems imply acceptance of the orthodox understanding of money as a commodity. Some of Martin's criticism of the limitations of the orthodox view seem to apply to these alternatives, as well.

Mr. Martin writes in a relatively accessible manner relating stories, mostly, about money in historical and global contexts. His approach reminds of Malcolm Gladwell's books which use elaborate historical stories to illustrate relatively complex topics. Gladwell writes better but, arguably, covers simpler issues. However, this book, too, is relatively simple. It is no treatise on money or systems; it doesn't cover every issue which relates to money and exchange; and it seems a bit thin on theory even on those topics it does focus on. The major topic is the nature of money–a medium of exchange or social/political organizing tool and that issue has been theorized differently for centuries.

Mr. Martin starts his critique of the orthodox view of money by explaining how the early Pacific island Yap culture relied upon the symbolism of large stones (known as "fei.") These stones were kept by individuals as value storage devices, even though they had few of the characteristics which typically would be present in money systems–tokens of some sort small enough to carry and to hide, a consistent look, ease of exchange, a readily determinable unit value, etc. None of that was relevant for the Yaps as they understood money as mere transferable obligations, commercial or otherwise, based on mutual trust. The bigger your stone, the more value you had to trade, even though no stones physically moved anywhere. The Yaps had a small community and violations of community trust were easily discouraged. The stones (including a large one on the bottom of the ocean) were only tangential to the much more relevant element of social trust.

Mr. Martin reviews a large handful of other historical situations involving credit collapses, bank runs, recessions, and big bank/governmental associations to make his main point that when money is rigidly understood merely as a commodity of exchange, bad things can happen to financial, credit, economic, and political systems, especially in difficult times. Take, for instance, the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th century where potential government/social aid to the jobless and hungry was stymied by creditor interests who valued the absolute sanctity of (bond and debt) contracts even at the consequences of millions of deaths. As they saw it, those victims were either responsible for their own problems or just losers in a competitive economy. Some economic thinkers at that time believed that those awful consequences were just part of the natural order and represented (unfortunately for the victims) unavoidable consequences of "good" finance.

While Mr. Martin doesn't address it much, most of the little people in America and elsewhere were also victims of the absolute sanctity of debt contracts. They lost jobs, homes, pensions, and savings in the Great Recession while big bondholders who legally had assumed investment risks lost nothing. Their debt contracts were inviolate. (The personal and social contracts of the little people naturally were worth nothing.)

Some of the major policy implications of money deal with: 1) inflation and deflation where a political decision is implied involving the contrary interests of creditors and debtors: 2) social responses to credit collapses and the role (if any) of government in moderating them; 3) who or what entities are or should be guarantors of trustworthiness (i. e., big banks? government? a computer network? 4) the role of formal contract law versus the principle of the good social good, and more. These are not mere abstract matters of formal theory but highly consequential matters of life and death (as the Irish potato farmers and lots of little people have found out.)

The author spends a lot of time explaining how trust works--in small organizations and communities, nations, and in globalized financial systems. At the top of the trust ladder (even for the most libertarian types) is the sovereign, i. e., government. There are important reasons why governments are generally lenders of last resort, stabilize financial and economic systems, and ultimately, the only potential savior for citizens from total economic collapse (as in the Great Recession.) There are various alternatives for the governmental role, none of which please everyone.

Hence, the political dimension of the money-social relationship. Mr. Martin comes down hard in favor of the flexible, social understanding of money. He praises John Maynard Keynes, Walter Bagehot, and even Salon, of centuries ago for their insights. He blames the great liberal philosopher, John Locke, of all people, for having a decidedly ill-liberal and ill-formed understanding of money. Lock was an orthodox monetarist and helped justify the philosophy which is still prominent. Each of the two philosophical approaches discussed here offer both liberal and conservative themes though rarely opposed as such.

That raises one major objection to Martin's thesis that orthodox monetary theory is wrong. He wants to substitute the social tool concept for it, but it seems pretty obvious that both frames of reference have their utility and truth. It's not easy to discredit respect for contract rights. On the other hand, it's hard to accept the starvation of millions of people to maintain them fully intact.

Nearly all such fundamental frames have their truths, even if inconsistent with the other. The better philosophical view is that we are guided (or not) by multiple, logically inconsistent frames. That is a philosophical point which he doesn't address well enough. He does concede that the orthodox theory mostly works well when times are good (but breaks down horribly when circumstances are bad.) This seems to imply a need for high-level judgment somewhere in the system, e. g., democratic political processes, a conclusion which tends to support his position.

He offers a couple of not very well-explained alternative monetary systems designed to remedy the faults of the orthodox approach while maintaining its virtues. He ends the book by suggesting that even if his thesis is correct, that getting the rest of the world to accept it is difficult–most people have rigid orthodox views, fiercely held. He lamely suggests without any elaboration that the power is within each of us to change those views. That would seem to require another book.

There are many things to pick on in this administration; make no doubt about it. But several of the things you bring up are either silly or stupid.

1) Obamacare that nobody wanted; I'm sorry -- you don't like health insurance? Clearly, large segments of the population don't want it, but "nobody" is such a sweeping, wrong-headed generalization that it shows your huge bias.2) Errr... the economy isn't recovering? Unemployment is down, the market is way up. Which metrics do you use? Yes, it could be *bette

Good points, but you are using faulty numbers to dispute #2. Unemployment is down only if you exclude those that dropped out of the labor force. But that may (probably) can't be blamed solely on the administration. I'm looking at the Fed for pumping money into banks, and banks not lending the money out to small businesses (which has pushed the market up somewhat).

Being a puppet for Wall Street? Sure, that seems like a valid criticism. Of this and every other administration in recent times, I suppose.

In the 19nth century, when prices were falling, the small farmers were being hurt because there wasn't enough inflation, so they kept owing more and more to the banks. So they formed the Greenback Party, ahead of its time, urging the US to get off the gold standard permanently (Lincoln had already printed over $400 million greenbacks during the Civil War, and species payment had been suspended, so the gold standard wasn't rigidly adhered to), and print more greenbacks. The small farmers understood that deflation benefited the big money holders more than the poor.

The problem with the gold standard is that it didn't permit elasticity. Elasticity in the money supply was needed during times of panic, or with seasonal variations in the demand for money. So farmers would withdraw money to get product to market in the fall, and the banks would pull it out of the stock market to pay them in gold, and the stock market would crash and there would be a panic. So the banks on their own evolved a clearinghouse system that functioned essentially like a central bank, creating credit, using paper money. Eventually the private sector agreed it was better for the government to run a centralized clearinghouse, rather than let J. P. Morgan run it, because Morgan had no obligation to serve the public interest, and could help his friends and hurt his enemies. So after Morgan ended the Panic of 1907, it was generally agreed upon by the private sector that the creation of the Fed was a better idea.

Inflation is used as a scare tactic by gold-mongers. One common story is: a suit cost $20 in 1920 (or whenever). But how much was a computer in 1920? $Infinity, because they didn't exist. So along with some inflation, came a huge increase in standard of living and technology. An increasing money supply fuels innovation. The Song Dynasty in China was the first to experiment with paper money, and saw great innovations as a consequence.

I'm sure I'll be crucified on a cross of gold for saying this, but the silver mine owners of Nevada were the Koch brothers of that time and the the Greenbacks were their astroturf organization.

There's little reason to care about modest inflation or deflation. I would say that people tend to be more considerate of the future in a mild deflation situation since time value of money is higher. All those farmers were going out of business not because there wasn't enough inflation, but because they weren't pro

I'm sure I'll be crucified on a cross of gold for saying this, but the silver mine owners of Nevada were the Koch brothers of that time...

Somebody knows a little financial history. Early thinking about inflation involved "the free and unlimited coinage of silver". Look up the "free silver" movement.

Understanding the implications and biases of the financial system is very important. For example, introducing money into the system via the Fed is a a bias toward the banking system. Introducing it through infrastructure spending (which Japan does) is a bias toward the construction industry. Introducing it by financing export oriented industries (as China does) is a bias toward manufacturing industries.This is a political policy choice, and more than one option is possible.

"In the 19nth century, when prices were falling, the small farmers were being hurt because there wasn't enough inflation, so they kept owing more and more to the banks."

The prices were falling because production was expanding. This is called "supply and demand", and that's the way free markets are supposed to work.

"The problem with the gold standard is that it didn't permit elasticity."

The "elasticity" you refer to is the ability of government to print money it doesn't have and didn't earn or tax. This was the direct cause of both the cancellation of the internal gold standard in 1934 and Nixon's axing of the Bretton-Woods system in 1971.

Elasticity in the money supply is essential, and was recognized as such by the private sector. Panics resulted from money being taken out of the stock market to supply farmers with their deposits on a seasonal basis.

"that's the way free markets are supposed to work."

The free market doesn't care about the General Welfare or the public interest. Government does.

The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.

The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.

If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.

Money is merely a tracking device.

Money is also a storage device. If I trade my cow for 4 goats today when I could have gotten 5 goats for it next week, I've lost out. But if I trade my cow for money today and hold the money, then I can buy 4 goats next week, have money left over to buy something else, and have the savings that come from not having had to feed and care for the cow for a week. Of course it could also go the other way - I could lose on the transaction. And this is how stock markets are supposed to work, for better or worse.

The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.

So in the real world, where real things happen, this isn't near true. Money is created when banks issue loans. Banks issue loans based on market forces and do so without government permission and do so whether they have reserves or not. In fact, in reality anyone can create money, and people do every time they issue an IOU, the difference is whether a third party would accept them in exchange for things.
Saying money is independent of trading is like saying debt is independent of trading: nonsense.

The question is, what is it tracking? Money has intrinsic value because it is useful, so this has the possibility to distort the 4 goats = 1 cow equation. There's also the problem that bartering can occur. Maybe this circumvents the tracking, but I think of money as an IOU, so you could say it tracks debt (which doesn't change when bartering happens).

"Elasticity in the money supply is essential, and was recognized as such by the private sector. "

Bullshit. Look at that chart again. "Elasticity" was never essential until the government MADE IT essential by spending more money than it had gold to back it. You're claiming that the government's "solution" is necessary because of a problem the government created in the first place. That's like saying amputating your arm is good for you and "essential" to the health of your arm because the cut I made in it with a machete last week has become infected.

"The free market doesn't care about the General Welfare or the public interest. Government does."

The graph you've linked to is nice and all, but it would be better if it adopted a logarithmic scale when the inflationary period started. After all, the Fed's policy since the Great Depression has been to target a particular range of inflation per year, which will result in an exponential curve. Trying to do a linear fit to a process that was targeted to be exponential just ends up making the graph misleading and less useful to measure the effects of the Fed's policy.

It's all due to government wanting (and spending) more than it can afford. And it's hurt everybody. (Except, of course, those who actually benefit from inflation: government, banks, and Wall Street. Everybody else suffers.)

"The graph you've linked to is nice and all, but it would be better if it adopted a logarithmic scale when the inflationary period started. After all, the Fed's policy since the Great Depression has been to target a particular range of inflation per year, which will result in an exponential curve. Trying to do a linear fit to a process that was targeted to be exponential just ends up making the graph misleading and less useful to measure the effects of the Fed's policy."

Just no. The intended effect might be exponential, but the actual effect as shown is in linear dollars, because the actual effect on costs is not logarithmic, it's linear. Where did you study information presentation? You're suggesting I use a misleading measure of actual results, simply because of the intent of the policy? That's crazy.

As someone else in this thread has already pointed out: prices are relative to other prices in trade. That's how they're measured. This graph is an accurate representatio

The fact that inflation harms savings is simple elementary-school-level math. And since the real health of an economy is measured largely by production capacity + savings, any harm to savings is relative harm to the economy.

Savings are government deficit. For the non-government sector to save there has to be a surplus. For the non government sector to have a surplus the public sector must run a deficit. Every dollar in existence was issued through a deficit. Money is created out of nothing because that's the only way it can be created, but the government is almost always the last step in the process.
And the obsession with inflation is pretty weird. Eco-metrics don't suffer. Numbers don't feel pain or starve to death.
A real

[quote] It's all due to government wanting (and spending) more than it can afford. And it's hurt everybody.[/quote]

The voting population of the United States overwhelmingly wants their government to spend more than it collects and the government they elect reflects that. Everyone likes the idea of cutting spending and then cutting taxes. But when asked what spending to cut- young people want to cut the programs used by old people, old people want to cut programs used by young people, rural voters want to

" It helps that massive percentage of Americans that receive benefits from the government..."

... at the expense of a healthy productive economy.

There, fixed that for you.

Government handouts are not production. Government does not produce wealth, production does. Government handouts (according to some rather famous studies) cost about $2 in production for every $1 in handouts.

If you want to ruin the economy, that's the way to go. Just ask Greece and Spain [investing.com] for example.

Government handouts are massively productive if they help someone who has just been made redundant get back into work. That's kind of the point of government, in my opinion, to help and protect those at shitty parts of their life.

Stuff like child benefit is a different matter, and annoys me (in the UK, you've got to be rich to not qualify for child benefits, I think they should go to the poor only). Also, taxing and giving benefits to one person at the same time is counterproductive... getting rid of tax

Government handouts are not production. Government does not produce wealth, production does. Government handouts (according to some rather famous studies) cost about $2 in production for every $1 in handouts.
If you want to ruin the economy, that's the way to go. Just ask Greece and Spain [investing.com] for example.

We're not Greece, our situation isn't Greece, and Greece's problems don't point to a solution for any other country on the planet. Treating this country as if it were Greece would be a sure sign to ruin..

American workers have grown in productivity with advances in technology, but their share of the wealth that they produce through their labor has been declining steadily since the early 70's. The problem has never been with the lack of wealth but it's distribution..

There's just not enough gold for a gold standard. We have mined 150000 tons of gold in total. There are more than 6 billions people. The mean amount of gold per person would be 25 gram of pure gold per person without counting governments and corporations. Now the standard reply is just "gold would just become more valuable until there's enough gold". But that'll only happen to a point. And the deficit in gold is too massive. Unless the government uses guns to enforce a minimal value for gold. Would you acc

*sigh* no mod points today. I may disagree with the basis of roman_mir's assertions, but I don't think the post should be voted down. It's not nasty; the closest thing to vitriol is calling the book a "piece of shit" (which reads more like a thesis statement than an ad hominem). I know that a lot of fucking crazy Republicans (or more likely trolls masquerading as such) have been posting some pretty steamy piles of shit around here lately, but this post definitely is not one of them.

You say that governments print money and control the money because government wants more of it. In America, my friend, the government is the people. In the words of the great Republican Abraham Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Our government is not an entity of its own, clawing away for every advantage. Our government is a body of leaders representing all people living within our nation: a Republic.

Therefore when one thinks of the ways that our government takes away our we

There is no real money. Its a trust system. You have only perception of value.

as in money that is not fiat

There is no real money. Its a trust system. You have only perception of value.

namely gold stood in the way of governments

Gold has no intrinsic value by itself. Its a rare metal. Its not money. Its perceived value is not even stable across time. Again, its a rare metal in a trust system. Gold has value for you because you can exchange it for stuff you actually need. Other people accept it exactly because of the same motive. Oddly enough, if gold was rated at production cost

it's printed right on the money: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". You're legally required to accept US Currency. It's up to you how much, but if you have a debt you don't get to say no. You can require that the currency be in certain denominations (e.g. you can decline a jar full of 10,000 pennies) but that's about it.

If you say no and it's enough money to go to court over than sooner or later a judge is going to make you take the money. If you tell a judge no he throws you

You can not legally require me to take cash for a doubt. If your debt to me is 14 pigs, then you owe me 14 pigs. Period.

The statement you're reading means the GOVERNMENT will back its value, for all debts, public or private, it does not mean you have to accept cash.

There are plenty of businesses who do not accept cash for their services or goods. All the examples of places who use their own currency for micro transactions such as xbox live (formerly, they recently stopp

it's printed right on the money: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". You're legally required to accept US Currency. It's up to you how much, but if you have a debt you don't get to say no. You can require that the currency be in certain denominations (e.g. you can decline a jar full of 10,000 pennies) but that's about it.

Someone already replied to this. And, as you may have guessed by now, the US didn't invent the concept of money (or markets, for what it's worth).

If you say no and it's enough money to go to court over than sooner or later a judge is going to make you take the money. If you tell a judge no he throws you in prison for contempt of court.

This is just silly. A judge CANNOT FORCE anyone to do anything. The judge has no power. The institution the judge represents is a different matter altogether. But, as an example, I can easily create a pizza restaurant that works exclusively via subscription and is payed via electronic transaction. AFAIK there is no law against this.

Why is gold valuable? WHy should we use it for currency? Clean water is much more valuable, you can't live without it. You can't eat gold.Gold as a currency is just another currency, it is valuable because people think it is valuable. Gold bugs are a bizarre cult who do not understand economics at all.

Governments do have a role in money systems. The Dutch Central Bank is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year, and it's interesting to note that the first 30 years were spent trying to establish faith in paper money. Once this had happened it opened the way for some much needed liquidity in the economy and a lot more economic activity happened as a result of that.

In the 11th century the Vikings raided the monasteries. This provided a much-needed economic boost once the gold came into circulation again.

Money is not a commodity. That was actually the basis for the first revolt against the new American government of George Washington's.
They implemented a tax on corn liquor but jars of corn liquor were actually trade items--dollar bills if you will--because they didn't go bad
America essentially taxed you on the bills you used to pay. That's complete different than taxing your income or your net worth.

For anyone who thinks monetary policy matters globally or that the gold standard or bitcoin have any sor

1. First assume the total worth of everything in the world is 5 trillion dollars or be as accurate as you wish.
2. Next, assume the total worth of everything in the world is just 5 dollars.

This is an interesting thought experiment but it has no connection with reality. Money isn't created or issued by someone deciding that everything is worth whatever.
It's like saying "imagine all metres were an inch long". That won't make everyone think it.

Since you're already modded to +5 I won't bother, but - Kudos for not being one of the mindless cumwads who automatically reject anything that anyone else says just because they are associated with ${political party or person's name who we've been conditioned to hate by propagandists}. Without critical thinking, there is no thinking possible at all.

I like C. H. Douglas's Social credit [wikipedia.org] definition of money:

According to economists, money is a medium of exchange. Douglas argued that this may have once been the case when the majority of wealth was produced by individuals who subsequently exchanged it with each other. But in modern economies, division of labour splits production into multiple processes, and wealth is produced by people working in association with each other. For instance, an automobile worker does not produce any wealth (i.e., the automobile) by himself, but only in conjunction with other auto workers, the producers of roads, gasoline, insurance, etc. In this view, wealth is a pool upon which people can draw, and money becomes a ticketing system. The efficiency gained by individuals cooperating in the productive process was coined by Douglas as the “unearned increment of association” – historic accumulations of which constitute what Douglas called the cultural heritage. The means of drawing upon this pool is money distributed by the banking system.

Douglas believed that money should not be regarded as a commodity but rather as a ticket, a means of distribution of production.

I see money as an exchange, energy flows in one direction and money in the opposite. I expend energy at work so I get money in return. People expend money for me and I give them money in exchange, etc.

So what did the third oarsman on the left of the trading vessel accomplish by himself? Nothing new about taking a share in a great project led by a lord or rich merchant. And there's nothing new about making products that go into value chains like from wool you spin thread, from threat you weave cloth, from cloth you tailor clothes. With eBay and big data we could probably do better without money now than ever before, simply by finding closed loops where person A wants what B has, B wants what C has and C w

Commodity money is based on some thing which is in limited supply. We don't use this anymore.

Fiat money is created by the Government out of nothing. It gets it into circulation by Government spending. It gets it out of circulation by taxing. People use it because they have to pay taxes in it. If the total amount of wealth is increasing the Government must run a deficit or there will be deflation. If it runs a surplus there will be inflation and recession.

Part of our economic problems come from people (including policy makers) being stuck in commodity money mind-sets when we are using a different kind of money entirely. Currently there is a deficit and a recession because the deficit isn't big enough and there is too much tax! There are structural reasons too, like the Government spending on the wrong things.

Actually, there are many kinds of money if you consider money as a "thing." However, money is a "measurement" used to help determine if trading is equitable for all parties.

Although this book is interesting, I would recommend Ludwig Von Mises, "The theory of Money and Credit" https://mises.org/books/Theory... [mises.org] for a more well-rounded look at what money actually "is".

Question Suppose you needed a board 3' long for a bookshelf, and the government made the "inch" smaller between the time you measured and the ti

Commodity money can also change in value when the supply of (or demand for) the commodity changes. This can be naturally arbitrary, or due to market manipulation by large holders. If the commodity cannot be produced fast enough to match wealth creation there will be deflation. The gold standard era was not devoid of economic crises. The tally-stick era was much more stable, probably due to the broader range of commodities it employed and the lack of fractional reserve shenanigans.

"The theory of Money and Credit" is, like a lot of economics texts, a work of pure fantasy without any reference to real life designed to retrofit a bunch of presupposed conclusions. Every example of human culture we have ever studied, including the ones we live in, completely discredit everything those texts imagine is or was true.

There are lots of examples of "money things", but they are all tokens representing a unit measure of debt. Or there are commodities.

In my opinion, the REAL issue with money stems from two things.1. Detachment from actual worth. A lot of people harp on gold back and many other schemes but that's not what I'm talking about. In times like ours, where money truly is nothing more than a perception of value, it can be manipulated much like religious talismans have been manipulated throughout history.2. Positive interest systems. Positive interest promotes hoarding and a overall m.o. of only contributing

Economics is based on biology. Lots of different organisms trade resources back and forth. In fact, if you don't trade and you can't find resources, you die.
Basic economics and it applies equally to protozoans, elm trees and human global civilization.

As far as money per se, that is an illusion or artifact of civilization. People who think credit or cash or the gold standard drives economics don't actually spend any time thinking about the concepts or limits. Consider--what is the total dollar value of e

Have you heard the good news about Das Kapital? I actually should re-read this, as it's one of the better treatises on money, capital, etc ever. Ignore that communist part if you want, since that part from what I remember was pitched as a logical conclusion but is more of a future prediction.

Once upon a time, gold money may have been wealth in itself, but today that quaint method of business is long gone. Money, holes, facilitates the movement of wealth, but is not wealth itself. Frankly the last thing any rich person wants is a big pile of money sitting around doing nothing. To a large degree our fascination with money has caused us to lose sight of the wealth it really represents. Money today is just a measuring stick of wealth, and an elastic one at that. Had more people looked not at th

Sisters : I will use two pieces of paper as an example. Can you see this?
Human : I see one piece of paper, the other's money.
Sisters : Two pieces of paper.
Human : What ?
Sisters : Here are two pieces of paper. Both the same size. Both just paper... Humans are obsessed with money.
Human : Not all humans; Just some of us... Most of us.
Sisters : One piece of paper is worth 500 solar credits, the other is worthless; Not even worth a solar centavo. Do you know why?
Human : Sure! One's a piece o

No.. you have to believe that 1) someone has a mandatory payment to make and 2) that they can make that payment in that currency.
That's the difference between dollars or pounds or yen and pieces of paper (cloth actually I think).

... of money a long time ago. How money interacts with the law (concepts of property) is what's at issue. Money acts as a substitute for the earths energy and resources. The problem comes when you add rules to the game and add in exploitation, greed and the whole nine yards.